Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Haplentactinia armillata

Radiolaria - Entactinaria - Haplentactiniidae

Taxonomy
Haplentactinia armillata was named by Nazarov, in Nazarov and Popov (1980). It is a 3D body fossil.

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1980Haplentactinia armillata Nazarov, in Nazarov and Popov p. 55 figs. pl. 6, figs. 1, 2
2008Haplentactinia armillata Maletz and Bruton p. 1189

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
Life
Eukaryota()
Rhizaria
phylumRetariaCavalier-Smith 1999
classRadiolariaMüller 1858
RankNameAuthor
superorderPolycystina(Ehrenberg 1867)
orderEntactinariaKozur and Mostler 1982
familyHaplentactiniidaeNazarov 1980
genusHaplentactiniaForeman 1963
speciesarmillataNazarov, in Nazarov and Popov 1980

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
J. Maletz and D. L. Bruton 2008The species may possess a small microsphere of ca.
55–60 lm in diameter (Text-fig. 5G, H), but as the only specimen
showing this feature is incomplete, the detailed structure is
unclear. The specimen, however, shows a part of a branched structure
at the base of two distally branched spines, here interpreted as
the outer spines of Haplentactinia(?) armillata. A branched outer
spine is also present in a specimen with a coarse three-dimensional
mesh, measuring ca. 150 lm in diameter (Text-fig. 5I). The outer
spines are generally between 100 and 150 lm long, with a stout
base, slowly tapering towards their branching point. The secondary
spines of these branches are up to 100 lm long, but in most
specimens they are distinctly shorter, generally 50–60 lm long.
They have a maximum diameter of 10 lm. The coarse mesh has
an opening width of 20–25 lm with the bars attaining a diameter
of 5–6 lm. The mesh appears to get finer and denser distally, but
all specimens are either small or incompletely preserved.